thehotspur,

Thanks a lot for your replies, I've got a lot of reading to catch up on.

I also agree with Lostit that while protecting children or college students from gambling addiction should absolutely zero to do with why online gambling and online poker is illegal to offer to Americans, the general content of most congressional hearings and media pieces on online gambling/poker suggests to our citizens and representatives that it does. When it comes to any progress towards legalization or regulation of any online gambling activity, we are battling against hearts and guts rather than minds. If indeed spin is inflating problem gambling statistics, getting the true numbers out there may be important for proper legal treatment of online poker.

Hotspur thanks for your feedback, it is very insightful. I lay more blame in Bacchus spinning (actually lying, it wasn't close) what was being said than of the study's shortfalls. By nature no study is perfect, some hit the nail on the head better than others. I doubt the authors would claim it is the "Bible" on gambling addiction, but Bacchus quotes it like it is.

The following comes from latest data from the Government as of 2.5 years ago (well into the poker boom), the suicide rate remained the same for the past 40 years.

http://www.suicidology.org/associati...005datapgs.pdf
http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/unitstates.pdf (data further back)

Bacchus claims that suicide rates have doubled on college campus in the past two years (100% increase!). I'd be curious where that comes from as well.

Thanks for the extensive reply. I'll be reading through it all. I do have one comment for now.

Here's one point you didn't prove. Rather, you stated an opinion as if it's fact, using the time-tested "X is true, and if you can't see that you're naive" argument style.

Sorry, but we get someone here every couple of months who thinks they just discovered on their own the the magic way to clear legalization - tax revenue - as if no one else ever thought of such a thing. The fact is that poker has been trying to sell itself on this benefit from day one. Various studies showing the lost revenue have been given to congressmen, and PPA (and other) lobbyists frequently tout revenues as an important benefit. Barney Frank mentions lost revenue all the time.

That being said, potential tax revenues are clearly not 100% of the battle, and you're delusional if you think we can buy this freedom with taxes alone (see how that argument style works?). If it were, Congress would have done that already, on its own. FoF and groups like that don't care about tax revenue. Nor does the NFL. They will fight us, and we do have to counter their lies, propaganda, and spin. We do have to write to Congress to show that many Americans believe in this freedom. We do have to stand for freedom.

Bachus is clearly an idiot.

Here are some other gems from that hearing:

1) "Problem gambling doubles within 10 miles of a gambling facility."
Thanks, Captain Obvious. ALLL gambling increases when you get closer to a casino. I'm sure it increases even more when you get inside the facility! Another wonderful scare tactic. But when you look at this statistic more closely, you'll see that it is completely meaningless by itself. What happens to NON-problem gambling within 10 miles of a gambling facility? I'm sure that increases too, right? Without the comparison between the two, Bachus' stat doesn't say anything at all. For all we know, non-problem gambling may triple within 10 miles. That would show that it's actually better to live closer to a casino!

2) "The decision is already made by the states. The states...all 50 states outlaw internet gambling."
Completely unfounded. There are two states that outlaw internet gambling and another handful that even mention it as a grey area. The other 40 some-odd states don't even address the issue, and 0 of the states (or the UIGEA for that matter) say what "internet gambling" is.

3a) "More and more teenagers were gambling until 2006. Now, I'm also going to stop right there and tell you that the University of Pennsylvania, and at this time I'd like to distribute this to all the members, before they vote because they need to see this. The Annenburg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania released a study which showed that the 2006 law had substantially reduced internet gambling. Here's their quote...'The decline of internet gambling was not surprising due to the passage last fall, 2006 of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act by congress.' This is the University of Pennsylvania."
If you're going to show argue that internet gambling is bad, you cannot use the fact that a law decreased it (and state that is a good thing) as an argument. We call that a strawman argument. He is assuming that internet gambling is bad to begin with. That is NOT an argument for why internet gambling is bad.

3b) "They have different segments of this study. One of them says, 'as a result, problem gambling has declined among male youths age 18 to 22.' Another part says, 'Gambling rates and problems are lower among women this year.' They are showing a decline in compulsive and problem gambling on our university campuses and in our community. The 2006 law has had its intended effect."
Totally irrelevant stats on their own. See everything above (in #1) about the 10 mile radius around gambling facilities. Also see the strawman argument (used in #3a) about how the law had its intended effect.


It's important to note that this hearing, HR 5767, was brought up to address the problem that banks are having with enforcing the UIGEA. The two things that the bill asked for were: 1) define "Unlawful Internet Gambling" so we have an idea of what's illegal, and 2) answer why and how the banks are supposed to police this (and there are even repercussions if the bankers get it wrong!) without any definition of #1.

Bachus never addressed either of those issues. All he did was go on and on about how gambling is a problem and how our children are at risk. He even goes out of his way to say that he doesn't care about the 40 or 50 year old guy who wants to gamble online.

This is really classic. In part two of his speech,

http://youtube.com/watch?v=i17HOGs7lng&feature=related
(at around 5:57)

Barney Frank: What about horseracing? Did they tell you what they think about horseracing?

Listen to Bachus' reply. It's hilarious. He completely skirted the issue.

TE,

Re: the money, or tax angle.

In the other thread, cavalucho showed a list of internet dangers for kids. Apparently, the number one concern of parents is the online predator who poses as a child.

It's funny how our government doesn't introduce bills to combat instant message clients, chatrooms, blogs, myspace/facebook/etc. or any other online networking services when they are the most dangerous for kids under 18.

Instead, they target gambling and porn...which have age verification...but which also coincidentally charge money for their services. The other dangers are all free and are unchallenged!

(disclaimer: this is just my opinion/observation, not fact)

Hotspur.

So from your knowledge does the rate of suicide of young people who gamble is different from the rate of suicide of the same age group who don't?

Would participating in fantasy leagues (exempted from the UIGEA) constitute gambling from the academic point of view?

I misheard what he said, he claimed suicide rates had doubled in the past ten years on college campuses. According to government stats, the rate amongst 15-24 year olds has declined 24% between 1995 and 2005 (13.3 per 100,000 to 10.00 per 100,000 and declined 21% amongst 25-34 year olds).

Using Bacchus' correlation/causation skills, the availability of internet poker has caused suicide rates to decline in America from 1995 (where there was no internet poker) to 2005 (nearing the height of the boom).

I wonder if the Republican who voted 'no' care that the whole argument was lies, or they knew what they wanted and it just doesn't matter? Would the PPA care to bring the government's own stats to show them that it isn't the issue they think? They can't say they don't trust the numbers that they put together can they?

Here is the link to the government data showing a decrease in suicides over the past 10 years:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_10.pdf

Our allies should at least be armed with this data the next hearing.

Some studies have found degree of problematic gambling to be positively correlated with suicidal ideation and suicide attempts among young people. But simply put we have known for a long time that extreme problem gamblers are prone to this, but then again they are prone to depression and other addictions and other mental health problems, so there is an obvious question of causality.

I don't recall ever seeing fantasy leagues mentioned in any prevalence study and I would be surprised if they got included. I think they can reasonably be excluded from gambling, but it's a judgement call.

I have seen stats somewhat comparable to this referring to a doubling of the the suicide rates among young males over a 10 year period, but this is from 90's research, I think Bachus botched a reference to it from one of the studies I linked above (the one by Nower et al).

Actually this is one point to have to concede, proximity of gambling opportunity increases rates of problem gambling. From a public health perspective it is not that relevant that total non-problematic gambling also increases, if reduces aggregate harm is your argument then more gambling -> more problem gambling is a pretty good argument.

To TheEngineer.
As I see things in every country where the state raises barriers to the free operation of online gambling it is for one reason and one reason only: economic. Most countries which have put up obstacles are protecting state monopolies in gambling, and they are having to be fought tooth and nail in Europe to open themselves up to free market competition. The arguments about protecting citizens rings hollow every time, it is just not the reason why these policies exist. America is not protecting a state monopoly but the power of the AGA (when it was anti-online gaming), the Indian casino industry, the rest of the gambling industry, and the perception that a lot of money was being lost out of the country is the reason why online gambling was not legalised when it emerged.

All of the arguments about protecting people are just subterfuge and so engaging them on this point in order to win the hearts and minds of the people strikes me as being exactly what the prohibitionists want. The more you argue about what is fundamentally an extraneous point the less threat you genuinely are to changing the minds of the people who make the decisions.

In my opinion people are quite wrong in viewing FoF or any right wing conservative religious group as being responsible for the illegality of operating online gambling. The whole Frist story with UIGEA and them, and Presidential ambitions etc tells a little story that actually doesn't speak to the truth of why operating online gambling is not legal in America. Demonising them, over valuing their genuine influence, and trying to engage in the debate on their terms is unlikely to effect much positive movement as far as I'm concerned.

And please try to lay off the overly disparaging opinions on people's styles of thinking and expression in posts, you might find to your disappointment that respect for ability is a two way street.

I think you're right and you're wrong here, at the same time.

Originally, I believe you're correct, the AGA had everything to do with why online poker hit resistance. But when the UIGEA was passed, they swooped in and picked up some valuable assets for pennies, and have positioned themselves (especially Harrah's) to be a market leader when the USA is opened up. I believe they have even become a vocal proponent of online gambling now that they've seen the true opportunity.

So why then isn't it legal if the AGA has so much power? Its because the right wing christian groups have quite a bit of power in this country. They basically elected Bush twice. Without them, Bush would never have been president, and both he and them know it. So when they want something, the republican leadership listens. They also represent one of the biggest obstacles for McCain, as they are withholding their support for him and its a big issue. If they throw their support behind McCain, he becomes president.

So there's a very legitimate reason why the right wing groups hold so much power, and gambling is an important issue to them. Since you just moved here recently, you can see that the economy means little to them (I know its an oversimplification, but it feels good to write it), but holding the presidency does.

Sun Tzu says "know your enemy". It's easy to view them through your belief systems, but to know them it's important to know how they think. The reality is that these people really believe gambling is evil and that it corrupts people, addicts them, and destroys marriages and lives. They aren't looking to trade this for more revenue, and politicians aren't looking to alienate them for a buck.

I've met with several conservative politicians on this. Their eyes to NOT light up with glee over collecting taxes from online gaming.

Taxes will obviously be part of the final package, but I think there is something naive about assuming all we'd have to do is make sure Congress understands there is money to be collected, as if it's not come up. Sorry, but this is a lot bigger than us offering to buy our rights.

Welcome to the Legislation Forum. We're glad you're participating with us to help us secure our freedoms.

I'm pretty close to this, and I believe you've simplified the case significantly. First of all, the NFL has funded a great deal of this, as they will do anything to stop sports gaming. Check out one of their letters, at http://www.citizenlink.org/pdfs/fosi...ess7-30-07.pdf . Secondly, FoF is driving a lot of this. Check out www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/gambling/A000004244.cfm . Certainly there is some protectionism to this, but American attitudes toward legalized gaming are quite different than you may imagine.

I was politely objecting to the tone you took in your reply to me. I found it to be too argumentative. On that topic, I'm not so sure you can completely learn and understand American attitudes, politics, and voting patterns from your short time here.

For an example consider the state of Utah, one of only 2 that doesn't have any form of legalized gambling. Why do you think this is? It isn't because their aren't Utahns who gamble (at least 3 casinos in Wendover just over the Nevada border are thriving due mostly to business from Nothern Utah - the winner of the WSOP ladies event last year was from Utah). I'm sure the politicians in Utah, just like every other state, recognize the revenue potential of lotteries and other forms of gambling. There must be some other reason. I wonder what that is?

Exactly. That's a great example.

So many people see the world through their own prism. Europeans are so much more open in gaming that they don't believe Americans could honestly object on moral grounds. I suggest that people spend some time in a fundamentalist church to really understand how the opposition thinks. Then, look at who makes up the GOP activists and grassroots.

Kentucky tried to legalize gaming this year but couldn't even get a bill together. Gov. Beshear tried to sell is solely on money, so why didn't it pass automatically? It's certainly no shortage of gamblers...the state is all but surrounded by casinos of neighboring states, and they do a nice business. Massachusetts had a similar story (except that loss had an assist from poker, of course).

The good news is that casino gaming initiatives in KY do better in areas close to casinos than in areas far from casinos. It seems that people see that gaming isn't the evil our opponents say it is when they see reality. So, there is hope for a campaign to share the truth.

It's a great example of a state that isn't hypocritical. It's also the exception rather than the norm in this country.

If right-wingers truly believe that gambling is immoral, I can respect that. There really are dangers associated with gambling and these really are those peoples' beliefs.

Unfortunately, not all right-wingers are the same. Ask all the other states why intrastate horsebetting and lotteries exist. Ask them why they have local casinos. Ask the churches why BINGO is played there! It's seriously ridiculous to preach out of one side of your face and contradict it on the other side.

I'm not saying that the revenue angle is the one we should take because I do realize that all right-wingers are different. My point is that there is a reason why horses and lotteries are exempt. There is also a reason why live casinos exist; and that reason is $$$$.

Concordantly, the best online gambling facilities aren't based out of America. This is a problem for the American economy. The solution is to create a monopoly within the country until American based sites are strong enough to compete with the rest of the world. That's essentially what the UIGEA was intended (and pretty much succeeded so far) to accomplish. Pretending to care about us and our children is just a facade. Just imagine the uproar if it were something else. For example, if the US gov't said "you can no longer buy foreign shoes over the internet." The only difference between the two is gambling has that "we care about you" angle and shoes don't.

Lotteries are run by governments, and are strictly for cash. If poker were to pay that much in taxes, the games would dry up in a hurry. Lotteries have always been vigorously opposed by churches, and churches always urge "no" votes on lottery votes (they usually require a state constitutional amendment to become legalized....the anti-lottery types are outnumbered in that case).

Horse racing has pretty much been grandfathered in, I guess. As for bingo, I've never seen bingo at a fundamentalist church. Catholics drink and play bingo. Baptists do neither. FoF sticks to the tenets of traditional fundamentalism, as that's what Dobson believes.

Again, PPA always reminds Congress how much money would come in from clear legalization. Unfortunately, that's not enough to move bills. It takes us to stand up for our liberties as well. It it were just money, this would have been done long ago.

I think that's more conspiracy theory than fact. Can you cite proof that UIGEA was passed specifically and only to protect U.S. based sites until they were ready to compete? If that were the case, where are the nascent U.S.-based sites?

The bottom line here is that the NFL and family groups led the charge against this. Congress got involved because Frist strongly opposed online gaming and because he thought he could save Leach's seat by passing this bill for him. The AGA was (and still is) neutral on UIGEA. MGM is for legal online gaming and has been for a long time. Harrah's was opposed to legal online gaming but is now in favor.

Not really. It's more like saying "you can no longer buy shoes over the Internet, except for two small specialty lines of U.S. made shoes (horse racing and fantasy sports).

Anyway, I'm simply trying to explain what's going on. It seems you think poker players need to offer tax revenues to pass this. I'm sharing with you the fact that this part of the package and always has been, so that's not what's holding up clear legalization.

This in itself says a lot. IIRC (too lazy to do the research), Harrahs was one of the groups that provided (80k worth of?) contributions to Bill Frist. Others who assisted Frist took a bunch of contributions from both the NFL and the National Thoroughbred Association. It's not a coincidence that this law was passed and that horseracing, lotteries and fantasy sports had carve-outs.

No, I'm not an expert and yes, I do have my conspiracy theories (), but they're based on a lot of logic. It's hard not to see what's been happening.

Yeah, this example is more analogous than mine. Either way, it's criminal.

I do think it's important to understand what we're up against.

If the AGA and/or Harrah's could have had ANY federal law, they would have gone for clear legalization. Does anyone think a U.S.-based, U.S.-branded site (and regulated by a U.S. state gaming commission) wouldn't be the #1 site in the U.S. (and probably the world) within about two months, assuming the same rake?

What really happened was far different. U.S. based companies could not open sites serving Americans, as the DoJ claimed that all interstate remote gaming, including poker, violated the Wire Act. They claimed interstate remote horse racing violated this as well, but looked the other way in deferrence to the Interstate Horce Racing Act. Offshore sites, however, could operate with impugnity, due to the ambiguity of what's covered by the Wire Act.

This was clearly not a stable situation. Why would America permit such a situation? It was logical to assume our nation would move to either permit U.S.-based gaming or would move against offshore gaming.

Well, with a GOP Congress, there was ZERO chance of repealing the Wire Act. FoF was making a lot of noise about feeling left out of legislating morality, so it was observed that we were a nice bone to throw to them. Social conservatives are not a majority of Americans, but they are a powerful faction within the GOP. So, we were that bone.

Adding to this was the NFL's very strong desire to end online sports betting. The NFL spends a LOT lobbying against all sports betting, including past efforts to get Congress to prohibit intrastate sports betting in Nevada.

Horse racing did work hard for their carveout, of course, through intense, expensive lobbying. They had U.S.-based industries behind them, so they had stronger lobbying efforts, and the support of more conservative congressmen like Sen. McConnell and Sen. Bunning. And, they already had the IHA, so the carveout wasn't new.

Finally, Harrah's gives money to many congressmen. Congressmen are as likely to get money from Harrah's as they are likely to get wet during a rainstorm. Frist's $50K wasn't very unusual. Rather than buying anything new, it seems this was more about not winding up much worse under the GOP Congress.

So, from my personal observations on this issue, it's a gross oversimplification to suggest that U.S. gaming interests were seeking a federal ban on online gaming, and UIGEA definitely wasn't done to help development of an American online industry.

Finally, it is important to to remember that the current status quo suffers the same issues as the pre-UIGEA one did. Until interstate gaming sites run by American companies on American soil are permitted, there will be no stability without a prohibition of some sort, at least IMO. That's why we have to counterbalance FoF-types as much as possible in voting for our freedoms.

DO we really believe that poker is in a very different class of games, from other gambling games, as related to problem gambling in both youths and adults?

My first impression would be that poker could be a greater source of addiction risk, due to the illusion of skill that poor/addicted players would have.

The reality is, this is true... for a small subset of the population. For the next-worst group, it damages these things.

I'm sure that you are not denying this, but the way I first read this statement, I felt I had to mention it

The .5 to 1% of the populations that are real "problem gamblers" are people who are going to have a problem no matter what the law is relative to gambling. If they have to get their adrenalin/endorphin fix buying thousands of dollars of lottery scratch tickets that is what they will do. If there were absolutely no legal gambling anywhere within their reach, they would find or create some illegal gambling form to get their fix.

They can only be helped by psychiatric treatment.

Bars do not "create" alcoholics, nor do casinos "create" problem gamblers. Certain genetic and/or environmental factors create certain people who are prone to addiction to certain stimulations.

This is the legacy of a lengthy historical idea, generally promulgated by religious fundamentalists, that certain "things" are bad, and thus if we can just get rid of the "bad things" all people will lead just and moral lives.

That this idea has proven to be incorrect over and over again throughout history does not seem to stop them. I guess that is the power of "faith."

Skallagrim

It's true that poker has that added factor that is addicting to some. For this reason, I think poker deserves careful, individual treatment, and Gupta's article seems to be going in the wrong direction.

Perhaps there are even more people addicted to poker than something like craps (though I feel like things I've read have shown that poker addiction is lower than most other gambling, definitely lower than sports betting). Either way, seeking to group poker with things that are pure gambles is not only misleading to young people (Gupta's article has the feel of scaring high school kids into perceiving poker as a dangerous slot machine, but I agree with the GPSTS view that poker has value as a strategic/mathematical learning tool and positive social pursuit for most teenagers), but counterproductive to understanding specific factors that lead people to be addicted to poker.

True, thanks.

Anti-gaming fundamentalists generally believe most people (or at least a very large minority) who ever try gaming get "hooked" and end up ruin their lives. Stats show that a very small subset of the population experience issues. And, I believe these people are responsible for their own actions, of course. LOL at FoF for saying "fry all the criminals, no questions asked", then saying "gambling, pornography, alcohol, drugs, and everything they coincidentally oppose CAUSES people to commit crimes" in the very next breath.

It's good for them that they're taught to never question their beliefs from a young age - their heads would explode if they ever tried to think this stuff through.

What ever happened to the forbidden fruit from the story of Adam & Eve? Since when did it become the fruit's fault and not the person's?

Oops. Hit the submit too fast.